Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Amazone is also working on a gamingstream service

«1

Comments

  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Member EpicPosts: 5,413
    Last year, Amazon made a HUGE push for their gaming service through Twitch and Amazon Prime. They offered many games for free, but only usable with their own "launcher", like Steam. They had some good games offered, but I'm NOT running yet another "launcher", just to play games.

    I see this kind of service as the future of gaming, too. The way players eat through games these days, it makes total sense to pay a monthly fee for unlimited access to a good library of games. No more trips to GameStop to resell your games for pennies on the dollar ("We'll give you $5 cash or $10 for trade in.") when all done playing them, or have the digital versions taking up space on your PC.
    Octagon7711Torval

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
    - FARGIN_WAR


    (And now Burger King has MEATLESS burgers!)

  • blamo2000blamo2000 Member RarePosts: 927
    I'm on the record saying I want large, competitive alternatives to Steam for various reasons but I'm not on board with making Amazon an even bigger megacorp.

    What happened?  All my life movies and books have warned about the dystopian future where evil megacorps run everything and increase the divide between the haves and have-nots.  And everyone I know who was scared of this has gone full crazy and now love, cheer, and support every evil megacorp there is.

    Its scary.  
    GdemamiAlBQuirky
  • SBFordSBFord Former Associate EditorMember LegendaryPosts: 33,126
    So is Verizon

    https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/11/18179048/verizon-gaming-video-game-streaming-service-vzg-nvidia-shield-android

    Verizon is currently conducting alpha testing of Verizon Gaming, a game streaming service that would represent a major new initiative for the home and mobile internet giant. The Verge can report that Verizon Gaming is already up and running on the Nvidia Shield set-top box and will, according to the company’s documentation, eventually make its way to Android smartphones. In either usage scenario, the service can be played using a paired Xbox One controller. Verizon has not publicly advertised Verizon Gaming or even really acknowledged its existence.

    Verizon has quietly been recruiting players to take part in the test, which currently involves over 135 games. Participants are promised a $150 Amazon gift card upon completion. They’re given a free Nvidia Shield, Xbox One controller, and a login for the test.

    TorvalAlBQuirky


    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 


  • PemminPemmin Member UncommonPosts: 622
    SBFord said:
    So is Verizon

    https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/11/18179048/verizon-gaming-video-game-streaming-service-vzg-nvidia-shield-android

    Verizon is currently conducting alpha testing of Verizon Gaming, a game streaming service that would represent a major new initiative for the home and mobile internet giant. The Verge can report that Verizon Gaming is already up and running on the Nvidia Shield set-top box and will, according to the company’s documentation, eventually make its way to Android smartphones. In either usage scenario, the service can be played using a paired Xbox One controller. Verizon has not publicly advertised Verizon Gaming or even really acknowledged its existence.

    Verizon has quietly been recruiting players to take part in the test, which currently involves over 135 games. Participants are promised a $150 Amazon gift card upon completion. They’re given a free Nvidia Shield, Xbox One controller, and a login for the test.

    makes sense for them...third party streaming services use up Verizon's resources while giving them 0 profit. All major isps are working on at the very least video streaming.
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,660
    Interesting news about Verizon. I didn't know they were already working on it. Now will people believe that nextgen consoles and major publishers and players (Microsoft, Valve, Sony, Amazon, Netflix, Facebook, etc) will offer Netflix style gaming access? The only questionable player on that list is Valve. I'm not sure they have the infrastructure built out to supply that in house, the others do for sure. 

    That leaves some pretty big publishers, without an existing in house platform, out in the cold. Will they scramble to build one out, go with the streaming players, or stay with traditional distribution. This also may bode poorly for indie studios and publishers not hooked up with a major distribution platform. Are gamers going to buy $30 indie games or pay Netflix or Sony $20/mo to play an entire library? The complete editions for most major titles cost around $100. That's 5 months of service at that price. I think this will radically change the gaming landscape.
    SBFordblueturtle13AlBQuirky
    take back the hobby: https://www.reddit.com/r/patientgamers/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly
    ༼ つ ◕◕ ༽つ

    It only took 3 people 8 words to rock Blizzard to its core.
  • parrotpholkparrotpholk Member EpicPosts: 4,602
    Personally I like game pass on xbox.  Lots of games I like and some not so much but at least I can try them with no cost to me.  How many games are actually worth owning and keeping around that you might revisit later?  For me the list is fairly short the last couple years.  Most I played and traded or deleted and have not really thought about them again but if I can pay lets say $15 a month and can play till my stomachs full then that is not so bad.

    I know most here are not thrilled about games as a service.
    blueturtle13
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,660
    edited January 13
    Personally I like game pass on xbox.  Lots of games I like and some not so much but at least I can try them with no cost to me.  How many games are actually worth owning and keeping around that you might revisit later?  For me the list is fairly short the last couple years.  Most I played and traded or deleted and have not really thought about them again but if I can pay lets say $15 a month and can play till my stomachs full then that is not so bad.

    I know most here are not thrilled about games as a service.
    I think there is a big difference between offering games on a service, like movies on Netflix, than games running as a service themselves. Sony already does this with PSNow.

    You did identify a danger though and that will be developing games exclusively for that service or for a streaming service that can leverage the service providers virtual currency. This is why proper regulation regarding predatory monetization is so crucial going forward. Addressing the fruit of the problem (like loot crates) does little to address the issue long term as the goal posts are easily shifted.
    blueturtle13RidelynnGdemamiAlBQuirky
    take back the hobby: https://www.reddit.com/r/patientgamers/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly
    ༼ つ ◕◕ ༽つ

    It only took 3 people 8 words to rock Blizzard to its core.
  • Octagon7711Octagon7711 Member LegendaryPosts: 8,839
    I look at the hundreds of games I own on Steam.  Most I will only play once or not at all because they were part of a bundle.  A service is starting to make more sense.  

    I wouldn't be surprised if Amazon looked into becoming an ISP one day.  Could help them lock in the gaming market as a bandwidth provider.
    SBFordTorval

    "We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa      "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are."  SR Covey

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 20,983
    It's delusional to think that this will mean you get access to all the games you want for a lot cheaper than you do now.  The cost of buying goods and services is always related to the cost of producing them:  the former can't go below the latter for long.  Delivering games via streaming is a lot more expensive than via a service like Steam.  Not a little more expensive.  A lot more expensive.

    That means that at least one of two things must happen:

    1)  A lot less money ends up making it to game developers, which will end up meaning that a lot fewer games get created than would have otherwise.
    2)  A lot of people end up paying a lot more money for games than they would otherwise.

    If it's (2), don't bet on it being that you get what you want for less while only all those other people pay a lot more.
    AlBQuirky
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,660
    Quizzical said:
    It's delusional to think that this will mean you get access to all the games you want for a lot cheaper than you do now.  The cost of buying goods and services is always related to the cost of producing them:  the former can't go below the latter for long.  Delivering games via streaming is a lot more expensive than via a service like Steam.  Not a little more expensive.  A lot more expensive.

    That means that at least one of two things must happen:

    1)  A lot less money ends up making it to game developers, which will end up meaning that a lot fewer games get created than would have otherwise.
    2)  A lot of people end up paying a lot more money for games than they would otherwise.

    If it's (2), don't bet on it being that you get what you want for less while only all those other people pay a lot more.
    You mean like Spotify, Netflix, and Prime Video where I have access to thousands of programs that would cost me tens of thousands of dollars or more to buy and watch otherwise?

    Monetary compensation for developers isn't a factor in my decision making just like it isn't when I use my current streaming services. A more likely scenario is that streaming publishers will start creating their own content or buying studios to make content for their service. This attracts paying service members. I think this is why Microsoft just purchased InXile and Obsidian. They make games that are attractive for their XBLive service but aren't very profitable on their own.

    Your assumptions are based on a premise that the current environment is okay and the present business model tenable. I think not. There are a saturation of games and the revenue faucet is tightening. A lot of developers saw easy money in games development but that's no longer true, if it ever was.

    Your last point may be true, but I haven't seen that reflected in other streaming media. Music is the same price it's been for a couple of decades, or more, and movies are about the same price as well. Games prices may go up, but that's only like to drive people to streaming services.

    Not only is streaming technically viable, it's also likely the best way forward financially for a big part of the industry especially for niche titles.
    Gdemami
    take back the hobby: https://www.reddit.com/r/patientgamers/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly
    ༼ つ ◕◕ ༽つ

    It only took 3 people 8 words to rock Blizzard to its core.
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 20,983
    Torval said:
    Interesting news about Verizon. I didn't know they were already working on it. Now will people believe that nextgen consoles and major publishers and players (Microsoft, Valve, Sony, Amazon, Netflix, Facebook, etc) will offer Netflix style gaming access? The only questionable player on that list is Valve. I'm not sure they have the infrastructure built out to supply that in house, the others do for sure. 

    That leaves some pretty big publishers, without an existing in house platform, out in the cold. Will they scramble to build one out, go with the streaming players, or stay with traditional distribution. This also may bode poorly for indie studios and publishers not hooked up with a major distribution platform. Are gamers going to buy $30 indie games or pay Netflix or Sony $20/mo to play an entire library? The complete editions for most major titles cost around $100. That's 5 months of service at that price. I think this will radically change the gaming landscape.
    What makes you think it's going to be $20/month?  Ever seen what cable companies charge for their ultimate package that includes all of the channels?  A game streaming service is going to be a lot more expensive to provide than cable TV.

    Now, there might well be game streaming services that cost $20/month for a relative handful of the games out there.  But if that service offers 100 games, 95 of which you don't care about at all, and three others of which you've already played enough that you're sick of them, is $20/month for the other two games really such a great deal?

    If $20/month is the price tag, it's only going to be due to fragmented gaming services.  You want to play ten games, of which this $20/month service has one of them, this $30/month service has two of them, this other $30/month service has two more, including the one that the $20/month service offers, some other services have one or two, and three of the games are only available via download through a service such as Steam.

    That means that to get access to all of the games you want costs $100/month for a variety of streaming services, you lose access to your saved files when you cancel a service, and you still have to buy some games up front the way you do now.  That's a lot more likely outcome than the $20/month streaming service that has all of the games you care about, at least apart from the people who only care about a few games.  Maybe you'll be content to pay for one $20/month streaming service and ignore the other 90% of games that aren't available on that service, but most gamers will go where the games they want to play are.
    GdemamiAlBQuirky
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,660
    I'm basing the $20/mo ballpark figure on what Sony now charges for PSNow. It's a guesstimate, not a predictive claim. We already have streaming services live in the real world and that's about how much they charge. It could be more or less depending on other factors. I expect Microsoft to be in that ballpark. I expect Amazon to offer a cheaper base service based on Prime membership with publisher add-on packages like they do with their video service. I expect they will incorporate marketing and adverts at their base tiers and offer premium or more complete packages. I expect them to incorporate family packages or "add-on" users that will make household gaming much more manageable and possibly cheaper.

    Some MMO gamers like @Kyleran have had 6 EVE subs active at once. Will users really balk at a monthly fee for a streaming games service? A lot of people casually dismissed media streaming services like Netflix because they said no one would pay for it. I pay for Netflix, Prime (+ 3 channels), and sometimes Hulu and still get cheaper better service than comparable cable packages.
    Gdemami
    take back the hobby: https://www.reddit.com/r/patientgamers/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly
    ༼ つ ◕◕ ༽つ

    It only took 3 people 8 words to rock Blizzard to its core.
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 20,983
    SBFord said:
    So is Verizon

    https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/11/18179048/verizon-gaming-video-game-streaming-service-vzg-nvidia-shield-android

    Verizon is currently conducting alpha testing of Verizon Gaming, a game streaming service that would represent a major new initiative for the home and mobile internet giant. The Verge can report that Verizon Gaming is already up and running on the Nvidia Shield set-top box and will, according to the company’s documentation, eventually make its way to Android smartphones. In either usage scenario, the service can be played using a paired Xbox One controller. Verizon has not publicly advertised Verizon Gaming or even really acknowledged its existence.

    Verizon has quietly been recruiting players to take part in the test, which currently involves over 135 games. Participants are promised a $150 Amazon gift card upon completion. They’re given a free Nvidia Shield, Xbox One controller, and a login for the test.

    That could be a game changer.  I've long been skeptical of game streaming as anything beyond a last resort and a minor sideshow, but an ISP has a much better chance of pulling it off than traditional cloud services, for two reasons:

    1)  Your ISP by definition has infrastructure near you.  Cloud vendors like Microsoft and Amazon usually don't.  That makes an enormous difference, both for latency and cost, as you'd much rather stream from a server five miles away than five hundred.  The last mile may be by far the most expensive, but the other miles all have a cost, too.  Having to traverse far fewer hops and far less distance means much less latency.  That could be the difference in gaming experience between mediocre and awful.

    2)  Your ISP by definition has the cooperation of your ISP.  Other companies likely don't, or at least not unless they pay the ISP a ton of money to get their cooperation, and pass the added cost along to you.  If you stream games a ton and use 2 TB/month of bandwidth, your ISP is probably losing money on you.  They've gone after their huge bandwidth users in a variety of ways in the past, and this is likely to end up as the latest round of it.  All that they'd have to do is to give you just enough hiccups while using large amounts of bandwidth to make you hate game streaming--and that wouldn't meaningfully disrupt anything else besides game streaming, so it's easy to sabotage purely by looking at bandwidth usage.  If your ISP is the one selling you a game streaming package, it's going to be priced to be profitable for them, and they're going to want it to work.

    Traditional cloud infrastructure is built for giant data centers that can host a ton of users at once.  That makes sense for what they build them for, as they're usually not sensitive to latency, so they don't need to be physically near their customers.  Game streaming is extremely sensitive to latency, so Microsoft and Amazon may have a ton of infrastructure, but it's designed all wrong for game streaming.

    The advantage that companies like Microsoft or Amazon have is that they have a backup plan in case their game streaming effort flops as badly as you'd expect.  They just sell access to the same hardware to other customers.  The same video cards that you use to render games can also be used for compute.  They'd still lose some money on a failed effort, but they wouldn't take an enormous hit from having a bunch of hardware that they have no use for.  Even if Microsoft builds infrastructure out of a bunch of Xbox One X hardware and later pulls the plug on the effort, that's actually a terrific compute part for purposes where you'd don't need a lot of memory but would normally be severely bottlenecked by PCI Express to a discrete GPU.
  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 11,750
    blamo2000 said:
    I'm on the record saying I want large, competitive alternatives to Steam for various reasons but I'm not on board with making Amazon an even bigger megacorp.

    What happened?  All my life movies and books have warned about the dystopian future where evil megacorps run everything and increase the divide between the haves and have-nots.  And everyone I know who was scared of this has gone full crazy and now love, cheer, and support every evil megacorp there is.

    Its scary.  
    But in reality there are no evil megacorps, people who read and watch fiction do realise that? Corporations can make huge mistakes and they can be corrupt like anything else in our society can including people, but they are not "evil".

     25 Agrees

    You received 25 Agrees. You're posting some good content. Great!

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Now Doesn't That Make You Feel All Warm And Fuzzy Inside? :P

  • delete5230delete5230 Member EpicPosts: 5,784
    Since its getting so confusing,
    I'll go into shut down mode and ignore all of it.
      
    Play the games I have on Steam now, adding one here and there, maybe !   

    Wait for Pantheon and SoL play the hell out of them.

    I'll then wait several years or more.  When VR gets 5 generations ahead of what it is now, I'll buy the 4th generation that will be years advanced from what it is now for $50  :)


    Easy..... Grand total of spending a few hundred dollars !
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 20,983
    Torval said:
    I'm basing the $20/mo ballpark figure on what Sony now charges for PSNow. It's a guesstimate, not a predictive claim. We already have streaming services live in the real world and that's about how much they charge. It could be more or less depending on other factors. I expect Microsoft to be in that ballpark. I expect Amazon to offer a cheaper base service based on Prime membership with publisher add-on packages like they do with their video service. I expect they will incorporate marketing and adverts at their base tiers and offer premium or more complete packages. I expect them to incorporate family packages or "add-on" users that will make household gaming much more manageable and possibly cheaper.

    Some MMO gamers like @Kyleran have had 6 EVE subs active at once. Will users really balk at a monthly fee for a streaming games service? A lot of people casually dismissed media streaming services like Netflix because they said no one would pay for it. I pay for Netflix, Prime (+ 3 channels), and sometimes Hulu and still get cheaper better service than comparable cable packages.
    So you're saying that it's $20/month for some tiny fraction of the games out there.  That's exactly the fragmentation problem that I raised.  A service that manages to get most of the games out there to sign up is going to charge a lot more than $20/month.
  • SandmanjwSandmanjw Member UncommonPosts: 206
    Torval said:
    I'm basing the $20/mo ballpark figure on what Sony now charges for PSNow. It's a guesstimate, not a predictive claim. We already have streaming services live in the real world and that's about how much they charge. It could be more or less depending on other factors. I expect Microsoft to be in that ballpark. I expect Amazon to offer a cheaper base service based on Prime membership with publisher add-on packages like they do with their video service. I expect they will incorporate marketing and adverts at their base tiers and offer premium or more complete packages. I expect them to incorporate family packages or "add-on" users that will make household gaming much more manageable and possibly cheaper.

    Some MMO gamers like @Kyleran have had 6 EVE subs active at once. Will users really balk at a monthly fee for a streaming games service? A lot of people casually dismissed media streaming services like Netflix because they said no one would pay for it. I pay for Netflix, Prime (+ 3 channels), and sometimes Hulu and still get cheaper better service than comparable cable packages.
    A lot of people still do not have unlimited bandwidth to stream. Until the basic ISP situation is more somewhat standard, and available...i do not know which way everything is going to go.

    Do enough people have access to unlimited bandwidth to make a game streaming service a go? I know that movie, tv services are all over the place now...but i am not sure i see a game streaming service alone being popular enough. 

    I do believe that quite a few big players see this going the way you do. MS, Amazon, Sony ,some others, they have been moving towards the "service" type of business model. Where streaming (along with the rest of their business) is a way to go.

    Maybe some type of mergers and or other type of businesses working together  will change something to make these streaming services work together. Just think we are not quite to a point that our internet and infrastructure can handle everything being streamed. Moving that way...but think we are a ways off yet. 


  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 20,983
    If it's economically viable to move to a model where you pay some fixed monthly fee for a library of games, then there's nothing stopping Steam from going that route--or any competing game marketplace that lets you download and play games.  They'd have much lower costs than a game streaming service, after all.  I'm not sure if it's viable on a large scale (that is, with one that covers most of the games out there, not just some tiny sliver), but I'd lean toward "no", primarily because no one has done it yet.

    Even if I'm mistaken about that and Steam sees a bunch of players leaving for game streaming services, they'll just mimic the business model that works for others and parcel out money to game developers in the same way.  That they can readily offer a better service for less money would allow them to undercut pricing of streaming services while still being far more profitable than game streaming.

    Valve isn't 100% committed to a model where players pay separately for each game, or perhaps bundle of related games.  Neither are Epic, EA, Ubisoft, or anyone else with a game store.  They're committed to making money, and if consumers want subscriptions for large packages of games rather than buying games individually, and are willing to pay more that way than for individual game purchases, then that's what they'll deliver.
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 20,983
    Sandmanjw said:
    Torval said:
    I'm basing the $20/mo ballpark figure on what Sony now charges for PSNow. It's a guesstimate, not a predictive claim. We already have streaming services live in the real world and that's about how much they charge. It could be more or less depending on other factors. I expect Microsoft to be in that ballpark. I expect Amazon to offer a cheaper base service based on Prime membership with publisher add-on packages like they do with their video service. I expect they will incorporate marketing and adverts at their base tiers and offer premium or more complete packages. I expect them to incorporate family packages or "add-on" users that will make household gaming much more manageable and possibly cheaper.

    Some MMO gamers like @Kyleran have had 6 EVE subs active at once. Will users really balk at a monthly fee for a streaming games service? A lot of people casually dismissed media streaming services like Netflix because they said no one would pay for it. I pay for Netflix, Prime (+ 3 channels), and sometimes Hulu and still get cheaper better service than comparable cable packages.
    A lot of people still do not have unlimited bandwidth to stream. Until the basic ISP situation is more somewhat standard, and available...i do not know which way everything is going to go.

    Do enough people have access to unlimited bandwidth to make a game streaming service a go? I know that movie, tv services are all over the place now...but i am not sure i see a game streaming service alone being popular enough. 

    I do believe that quite a few big players see this going the way you do. MS, Amazon, Sony ,some others, they have been moving towards the "service" type of business model. Where streaming (along with the rest of their business) is a way to go.

    Maybe some type of mergers and or other type of businesses working together  will change something to make these streaming services work together. Just think we are not quite to a point that our internet and infrastructure can handle everything being streamed. Moving that way...but think we are a ways off yet. 
    ISPs that can offer "unlimited" bandwidth if they expect an average customer to use 100 GB/month will flee in terror from that model if they expect average bandwidth usage to soar to 10 TB/month in the near future.  One enormous hurdle for game streaming is that if it catches on, it will cause bandwidth usage to soar.
  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 6,826
    I think what game streaming ends up being, and what people are thinking that it will be, will be two very different things.

    I think "Game Streaming" could work very well with just something as simple as an ArenaNet style patcher - the game is still running on your local hardware, but your just streaming files as you need them in small logical chunks, rather than a big bulk download.

    There will probably be some resource sharing, I'm sure cloud compute will get leveraged somehow, but I don't think it can stray too much beyond what we currently see with MMO client/server style architecture -- the server may run the world, but your local actions still get handled locally. 

    As far as it being "cheaper" -- maybe if competition steps up. But given United States history, I think it will be a wild west show starting out, and  you see a lot of services attempting to out-innovate and under-cut, but eventually it will consolidate down to just a couple of major players, and once it starts to hit that point is where the consumer starts to get squeezed.

    We already have plenty of "Netflix" style gaming services: XBLive pass, PSNow, Humble Trove, Origin All-Access, Nintendo Online, etc. Some of them just provide "buffet all-you-can-eat" style access, some attempt to stream a game online... I don't know that the distinction really lay in the method the game gets to the consumer, I think that's a technical detail that most won't care about so long as it works well enough.

    I think "Game Development" as a whole had already hit that point (let's just count the AAA players... I can think of only a handful that are relevant and still trying to sell $60 boxes). But mobile gaming and the potential for streaming has upended that somewhat, as development and distribution in the past had been pretty closely linked. Now we are starting to see the shakeup with distribution and a broader decoupling of development from distribution.
    TorvalAlBQuirky
  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 6,826
    edited January 13
    On a slightly different note:

    I can perfectly understand why developers and distributors believe that cloud-based "gaming as a service" is the holy grail.

    A large barrier to entry it the hardware requirement that the consumer must possess. If you can eliminate that initial investment, you gain a larger audience.

    Setting aside "speed of light" and latency arguments - which are valid points, and the availability of high speed internet, which I think is just as important... 

    It's certainly technically possible to get to where you could run a AAA-quality game on "MAX ULTRA" settings on anything that could feasibly run a display. And this is what the developers want - you don't need a $2,500 PC to play the latest game with great visuals. And it's certainly technically possible to make this entirely hardware agnostic - it could play on almost any PC regardless of CPU/GPU, it could play on almost any tablet, it could play on almost any console, it could play on the entertainment center in your car, it could play on your phone - and it could do this all with the same graphics and visuals and fidelity (obv control input would vary, but that's another technical detail I'm glossing over)

    And that sounds great... the consumer would probably love it. And it certainly presents the broadest possible market for developers.

    But distributors absolutely will not do that. They want you locked into their ecosystem, or at least make sure their cut of the money isn't getting pulled away by going outside of that. This is why everyone and their brother are trying to start up services now. All the AAA shops for the most part have their own service, and they don't allow their games to be distributed on other services. 

    I think this will end up with even more fracturing than we already have, unfortunately.  The only difference between what "streaming" with cloud compute and what we already have today, is that the hardware required will be less expensive. Instead of needing a $400 Playstation to play Playstation games, you will need a $50 "PSLinK" (seems they had a box that did this at one point), which will be a glorified SteamLink box that only connects to Sony services. And they will likely sell an App on Android/iOS that allows access to the service there as well (but you will be required to subscribe outside of that app, so Google/Apple can't get at that revenue).

    And Microsoft will have their own. And Nintendo will have their own. And probably EA or Activision will probably splinter off and decide to make their own. TenCent and S/E and maybe a few other larger distributors will decide they don't need the middleman either and make their own. It will turn into the modern equivalent of a hardware DRM dongle.

    Steam has already pushed that route, but they didn't decouple theirs from the PC. which is why it largely didn't catch on fire. Steam doesn't do anything with respect to Cloud Computing/Remote Processing.... Yet - it may come back if they ever decide to go that route. They haven't shown any indication of heading that direction though, and that may be their demise if the market does shift this way.
    AlBQuirky
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,660
    Sandmanjw said:
    Torval said:
    I'm basing the $20/mo ballpark figure on what Sony now charges for PSNow. It's a guesstimate, not a predictive claim. We already have streaming services live in the real world and that's about how much they charge. It could be more or less depending on other factors. I expect Microsoft to be in that ballpark. I expect Amazon to offer a cheaper base service based on Prime membership with publisher add-on packages like they do with their video service. I expect they will incorporate marketing and adverts at their base tiers and offer premium or more complete packages. I expect them to incorporate family packages or "add-on" users that will make household gaming much more manageable and possibly cheaper.

    Some MMO gamers like @Kyleran have had 6 EVE subs active at once. Will users really balk at a monthly fee for a streaming games service? A lot of people casually dismissed media streaming services like Netflix because they said no one would pay for it. I pay for Netflix, Prime (+ 3 channels), and sometimes Hulu and still get cheaper better service than comparable cable packages.
    A lot of people still do not have unlimited bandwidth to stream. Until the basic ISP situation is more somewhat standard, and available...i do not know which way everything is going to go.

    Do enough people have access to unlimited bandwidth to make a game streaming service a go? I know that movie, tv services are all over the place now...but i am not sure i see a game streaming service alone being popular enough. 

    I do believe that quite a few big players see this going the way you do. MS, Amazon, Sony ,some others, they have been moving towards the "service" type of business model. Where streaming (along with the rest of their business) is a way to go.

    Maybe some type of mergers and or other type of businesses working together  will change something to make these streaming services work together. Just think we are not quite to a point that our internet and infrastructure can handle everything being streamed. Moving that way...but think we are a ways off yet. 


    Yeah, infrastructure build out is definitely necessary. Of all the streaming media types this feels the most intensive to use, at this point. The transport and rendering mechanisms feel heavy duty, although that may change as games would be built to be delivered via streaming. I've done it a little, but only off and on a few times over the last 2 or 3 years.

    We had a telecom and internet problem in my county. We waited for big providers to do what they were subsidized and promised but ultimately failed to do, upgrade the infrastructure. Long story short, they weren't interested so we did something about it. https://www.cooperative.com/programs-services/bts/Documents/Advisories/Advisory-Broadband-Case-Study-Douglas-Fast-Net-August-2018.pdf. Now I have gigabit fiber to the door for $90/mo. It's not a "fix-all" solution but it is a big piece of the answer. The TL;DR of that is that businesses, coops, and tribal organizations are collaborating for profit and community benefit.

    take back the hobby: https://www.reddit.com/r/patientgamers/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly
    ༼ つ ◕◕ ༽つ

    It only took 3 people 8 words to rock Blizzard to its core.
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 20,983
    If getting rid of hardware requirements is the goal, then the target audience is people who have a really nice Internet connection (so that the bandwidth isn't the problem), but don't have a desktop or game console at all.  Because running the game locally on a $100 APU (or an Xbox One or PS4, for that matter) is going to give you a far superior gaming experience as compared to streaming the game.  That doesn't strike me as likely to be a lucrative audience.  People who want to play games on their phone already have a ton of games designed for phones.
    Gdemami
  • delete5230delete5230 Member EpicPosts: 5,784
    Quizzical said:
    If it's economically viable to move to a model where you pay some fixed monthly fee for a library of games, then there's nothing stopping Steam from going that route--or any competing game marketplace that lets you download and play games.  They'd have much lower costs than a game streaming service, after all.  I'm not sure if it's viable on a large scale (that is, with one that covers most of the games out there, not just some tiny sliver), but I'd lean toward "no", primarily because no one has done it yet.

    Even if I'm mistaken about that and Steam sees a bunch of players leaving for game streaming services, they'll just mimic the business model that works for others and parcel out money to game developers in the same way.  That they can readily offer a better service for less money would allow them to undercut pricing of streaming services while still being far more profitable than game streaming.

    Valve isn't 100% committed to a model where players pay separately for each game, or perhaps bundle of related games.  Neither are Epic, EA, Ubisoft, or anyone else with a game store.  They're committed to making money, and if consumers want subscriptions for large packages of games rather than buying games individually, and are willing to pay more that way than for individual game purchases, then that's what they'll deliver.
    $20 will be the extreme basic service. 

    It will have a cash shop.... and be Play-to-win.
    mmolou
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 20,983
    Torval said:
    Sandmanjw said:
    Torval said:
    I'm basing the $20/mo ballpark figure on what Sony now charges for PSNow. It's a guesstimate, not a predictive claim. We already have streaming services live in the real world and that's about how much they charge. It could be more or less depending on other factors. I expect Microsoft to be in that ballpark. I expect Amazon to offer a cheaper base service based on Prime membership with publisher add-on packages like they do with their video service. I expect they will incorporate marketing and adverts at their base tiers and offer premium or more complete packages. I expect them to incorporate family packages or "add-on" users that will make household gaming much more manageable and possibly cheaper.

    Some MMO gamers like @Kyleran have had 6 EVE subs active at once. Will users really balk at a monthly fee for a streaming games service? A lot of people casually dismissed media streaming services like Netflix because they said no one would pay for it. I pay for Netflix, Prime (+ 3 channels), and sometimes Hulu and still get cheaper better service than comparable cable packages.
    A lot of people still do not have unlimited bandwidth to stream. Until the basic ISP situation is more somewhat standard, and available...i do not know which way everything is going to go.

    Do enough people have access to unlimited bandwidth to make a game streaming service a go? I know that movie, tv services are all over the place now...but i am not sure i see a game streaming service alone being popular enough. 

    I do believe that quite a few big players see this going the way you do. MS, Amazon, Sony ,some others, they have been moving towards the "service" type of business model. Where streaming (along with the rest of their business) is a way to go.

    Maybe some type of mergers and or other type of businesses working together  will change something to make these streaming services work together. Just think we are not quite to a point that our internet and infrastructure can handle everything being streamed. Moving that way...but think we are a ways off yet. 


    Yeah, infrastructure build out is definitely necessary. Of all the streaming media types this feels the most intensive to use, at this point. The transport and rendering mechanisms feel heavy duty, although that may change as games would be built to be delivered via streaming. I've done it a little, but only off and on a few times over the last 2 or 3 years.

    We had a telecom and internet problem in my county. We waited for big providers to do what they were subsidized and promised but ultimately failed to do, upgrade the infrastructure. Long story short, they weren't interested so we did something about it. https://www.cooperative.com/programs-services/bts/Documents/Advisories/Advisory-Broadband-Case-Study-Douglas-Fast-Net-August-2018.pdf. Now I have gigabit fiber to the door for $90/mo. It's not a "fix-all" solution but it is a big piece of the answer. The TL;DR of that is that businesses, coops, and tribal organizations are collaborating for profit and community benefit.

    Don't get your hopes up about games being optimized for streaming, at least other than by using streaming as a form of DRM.  From a performance perspective, what you can do to optimize for streaming is considerably more restrictive than what you can do to make the game run well locally on a cell phone.  Your choices are:

    1)  Make it so that enormous latency isn't a problem, so that you can compress across time and it's okay if it takes a full second for anything the user inputs to affect anything that isn't rendered locally, or
    2)  Make it so that most pixels of most frames are exactly identical to the corresponding pixel on the previous frame, so that all that you need to transmit is what changed.
Sign In or Register to comment.